Ok, so in our list of discredited-to-the-point-of-idiocy anti-evolution tropes brought up by JCLover, we have:

1. Carbon dating is inaccurate!
2. Evolution = Abiogenesis!

TAKING BETS ON WHAT'S NEXT!!! Lack of transitional forms?! Irreducible complexity?! Evolution caused Hitler?!?! TAKING ALL BETS!!!

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism.

When will you people stop with this equivocation?!!!

Evolution is the theory that explains how living organisms have evolved throughout the ages to what they are now.
Starts with living organisms and ends in today's living organisms... actually, it doesn't end... it just keeps on going until there is no life that has originated on this planet.
Abiogenesis is the term used for life from lifelessness... many ideas exist about this detail... but knowing exactly which actually happened billions of years ago may be impossible.
God is the easy answer.... most likely, the wrong answer, as it has come about through no investigative process whatsoever.

Actually, just today, watching a video, I heard someone define atheism. And it's by far the most to the point definition I've heard so far.

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby"

(December 29, 2014 at 7:14 pm)Elskidor Wrote: I wish Brucer had not been a poe. His arrogant fake craziness would be more amusing than seeing this guy all over the place.

Brucer was a poe?


I thought he was just a fucking moron.

I think he mentioned he knew you from other message board.

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

Were evolution disproved overnight, I'd accept that but, remain atheist. I'm atheist not because of competing theories for the origin of life (hint, Darwin's theory evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, only why life evolves) but because there is no evidence that god exists. None. Evolution has deconverted many Christians, but it is not necessary to atheism. It is only a stumbling block to Christians who believe that Genesis is literally true.

Quote:Obviously, the evidences for Evolution is obtained through an / a philosophical & Ideological bias, One just has to see the answers posted on this forum by Atheist to see that with their lying Evolution Web sites and pseudo-Science they employ.

Hardly. Before you call it pseudo science, I'd like to see an explanation of why exactly you consider it pseudo science. The vast majority of scientists in other disciplines don't think it's pseudo science, nor do the vast majority of skeptics. Why do you? [Note: Evidence is a mass noun and therefore rarely needs a plural. The plural form would indicate not just multiple facts supporting evolution but multiple bodies of fact.]

Quote:What is tragic is that many Christians (and I use that word Christian loosely) are succumbing to worldly pressure to adjust their theology to “Make it Fit”

Not tragic, sane. If you believe in something based on faith, it is sane to adjust your belief when it conflicts with reality.

Quote:For it is Written “ 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NKJV) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

A fable is:

Quote: a short story that usually is about animals and that is intended to teach a lesson

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fable

Evolution is not intended to teach a lesson, only to describe the world as it is. That description is based on observed fact, not stories.

---

(December 29, 2014 at 6:53 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: Carbon-14 dating is just one example from the very long laundry list of inconsistencies and holes in the theory. Radiocarbon dates that do not fit evolutionary theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Most C-14 dates are thrown out.

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions and is subject to bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. It is science's dirty little secret, and yet they continue to lie that it is proof of evolution.

You are misinformed. Carbon 14 dating is not necessary to the theory of evolution. Simply the order in which fossils are found in the geological strata supports evolution. Nor do paleontologists rely of Carbon 14 dating beyond the dates of it's accuracy.

(December 29, 2014 at 6:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: C14 dating is not used for periods in excess of 50,000 years ago. Please stop with the Ken Ham inspired horseshit. You are making yourself look like more of a fool.

Of course it's exactly this, a simple answer that you have to completely ignore to try to keep the opinion that you have. I would be mystified if the thread starter hadn't heard it before. He's either dishonestly ignoring it or an idiot.

(December 29, 2014 at 8:06 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: He's either dishonestly ignoring it or an idiot.

To be a creationist you have to be willfully ignorant. And that's something I really hate in people. Even more so when they're proudly parading their lack of knowledge as if it was a badge of honour.

(December 29, 2014 at 6:58 pm)JesusChristLover Wrote: Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God.

Not really: evolution is a process that, by definition, requires life to already exist. Whether that life arose through natural means, or was poofed into existence by a space wizard with a penchant for hiding isn't even addressed in the theory.

Do you actually know what evolution is?

Quote: Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe.

Again, no: just read my above statement. You're 0 for 2 at this point.

Quote:Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism.

Oh, I wouldn't dignify creationism by calling it a theory. And I wouldn't dignify your "atheism is a religion" crack with any response at all.

Quote:According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

You just gonna assert that evolution is illogical, as per your presuppositions, or are you gonna take a minute to demonstrate that?

With actual facts, I mean. Not ridiculous distortions, like your Carbon-14 dating claim, that literally seven seconds on google would prove wrong.

Quote:Obviously, the evidences for Evolution is obtained through an / a philosophical & Ideological bias, One just has to see the answers posted on this forum by Atheist to see that with their lying Evolution Web sites and pseudo-Science they employ.

You just gonna assert that the pro-evolution sources are lying, or are you gonna stop to demonstrate that? Just because you say something, doesn't mean that we're instantly going to accept it; you'll need some sort of justification, and merely repeating the initial assertion isn't one of those.

Quote:What is tragic is that many Christians (and I use that word Christian loosely) are succumbing to worldly pressure to adjust their theology to “Make it Fit”

If you haven't adjusted your theology at all, then you believe that you're going to hell, right? I mean, Jesus himself said he had only come to be the salvation of the tribe of Israel, nobody else...

(December 29, 2014 at 7:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Brucer was a poe?


I thought he was just a fucking moron.

Those aren't exclusive.

As for the OP, he seems to have jumped the shark. I'm going to predict a relatively slow and comical burn leading to an almost anticlimactic ban.